Home > Community Lounge > Chit Chat > Truth about cancer

Truth about cancer

  1. It 's been some time since I got interested in the subject of cancer, whether conventional medicine has any answer at all (beside simple surgery) , whether chemotherapy is worse than doing nothing, whether alternative medicines have any benefit, whether systematic testing is justified (whether X-rays are dangerous), and whether people who "die from cancer" actually die from cancer or most of the time from complications due to the treatment. It's been suggested that people generally die from the side effects of chemotherapy . It's my intuition as well.

    I found it very difficult to find reliable answers on all these questions. Most of the info I find on the net sound a lot like conspiracy theories and I am somewhat skeptical of the claims made on alternative treatments such as the miracle graviola extracts.
    Is the graviola story true for example ? Supposedly a pharma company halted research when they couldn't synthesize the compound that had been shown to be 10,000 times more effective than the best chemotherapy drug. I also read about a study in Japan that showed mice treated with graviola compounds fared better than those treated with chemotherapy, (untreated mice did better too since chemotherapy killed about half the mice) . Again it's hard to find info on this from a -supposedly- reliable, mainstream source.

    Here are some links :

    (this is an Agora publications, so I take it with a grain of salt)

    http://www.whale.to/ (lots of conspiracy theories there)

    http://douglassreport.com/ This guy says chemo is a hoax, and steaks and beers are good for you. He is called a nut.


    Dr Weil

    At the same time , I sense something is wrong with the whole issue of cancer and its treatment. Conventional treatments are mostly not effective , and apparently actually shorten patients' lifes , and society bears a huge cost for these shortcomings. There is a gigantic transfer of wealth to the pharma industry and the medical profession and it goes almost totally unchallenged in the media and politics.
    This subject is never brought up in mainstream media , I am a seeker of truth and I know all traders are . I thought you would have some info on this issue and certainly some on here are M.D's so they must have their opinion on this as well.
  2. wrong.
  3. so what makes you say that. Everything I read on this shows medicine does not have the answer . Aside from surgery, medicine seems unable to treat cancer effectively. The effectiveness of drugs is questionable in light of the statistics that you can find on the web. Sure, progress has been made over the years but it's difficult to say conventional medicine is really adding value and improving patient's life. Success is for example defined as survival after X years (say 5) , if the patients die after those years , this is considered a success for the medical community.
    Even if the patient spent 70% of their time during those years, either hospitalized or undergoing some debilitating treatment .
    To me this is not a success, if it came at a reasonable cost to society maybe , but that's far from being the case. Cancer treatment often costs close to a million dollar a year per patient, and the patient still dies in the end.
  4. i have heard a couple of things. the first cuba has a cure, if you look at the rates of cancer there they are low.

    the second is that the vitamin b17 cures or prevents cancer. it is in apricot seeds.

    i have also heard that cancer is created by cell mutation, that you know, this you don't. supposedly we have a cell, white cells, that kills these mutations early on before it spreads so when this cell stops working or we have a low number of them it enables us to get cancer. the cancer is created when this cell is not functioning or dead. the thing that gives cancer is what turns this cell off, some research has suggested it is found in a chemical from smoke. even other cancers are started by this because when the white cells are turned off it enables cancers to form anywhere.
  5. with our diets we will get cancer because of over population. natures way of keeping population down i guess.
  6. have also heard that cancer is created by cell mutation, that you know, this you don't. supposedly we have a cell, white cells, that kills these mutations early on before it spreads so when this cell stops working or we have a low number of them it enables us to get cancer.

    Sounds much like the aging process.
  7. some research has suggested it is found in a chemical from smoke.

    Suppose we made a market, 1000 smokers, everyone go long. Ya think we'd all be winners on cause and correlation?

    I'd bet that the insurance cos don't even know.
  8. the truth about cancer is this. you can easily cut your risk in half at no cost.

    watch sun exposure,dont smoke,dont drink, eat a low cal plant based diet,get some exersize.
  9. Sorry but there are too many variables, and too much evidence to the contrary for that to be true.

    Not to pick on you but do you take everything from the AMA and FDA to be fact?

    If so look at the history of their "facts" and how they have changed over time.

    Start with the "myth" that fat in your diet is unhealthy.
  10. of course not all fats are unhealthy. its saturated fat that is the killer.
  11. I have heard of "blood electrification" also known as "blood zapping" helping to avoid or treat cancers. Google these 2 expressions to find numerous websites on this. There is a lot of hype and almost unbelievable statements as usual, but there might be some truth in some. Here are just some interesting websites:


    Read here in a forum about it:


    I had candida albicans for 23 years with all the bad symptoms and underwent all kinds of treatments and ate tons of pills, avoided everything sweet. But nothing helped. I started blood electrification in October last year and 6 weeks later I was eating fruits and chocolate like a world champion! Amazing. Hope it helps with cancer too one day.

  12. Placebo treatments stronger than doctors thought
    MARIA CHENG AP Medical Writer

    Friday, February 19, 2010
    Story last updated at 2/19/2010 - 9:49 am

    LONDON — When it comes to the placebo effect, it really may be mind over matter, a new analysis suggests.

    In a review of recent research, international experts say there is increasing evidence that fake treatments, or placebos, have an actual biological effect in the body.

    The doctor-patient relationship, plus the expectation of recovery, may sometimes be enough to change a patient's brain, body and behavior, experts write. The review of previous research on placebos was published online Friday in Lancet, the British medical journal.

    "It's not that placebos or inert substances help," said Linda Blair, a Bath-based psychologist and spokeswoman for the British Psychological Society. Blair was not linked to the research. "It's that people's belief in inert substances help."

    While doctors have long recognized that placebos can help patients feel better, they weren't sure if the treatments sparked any physical changes.

    In the Lancet review, researchers cite studies where patients with Parkinson's disease were given dummy pills. That led their brains to release dopamine, a feel-good chemical, and also resulted in other changes in brain activity.

    "When you think you're going to get a drug that helps, your brain reacts as if it's getting relief," said Walter Brown, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown and Tufts University. "But we don't know how that thought that you're going to get better actually translates into something happening in the brain."

    With growing proof that placebos work, some doctors are trying to figure out how to capitalize on their effects, without being unethical.

    Blair said that to be completely honest with patients — to tell them they were receiving a fake treatment — would sabotage their belief in the drug, and thus, undermine any potential benefit.

    But Brown didn't agree. For certain patients, like those with mild depression or anxiety, he said placebos were likely to work just as well as established therapies.

    He said that even if doctors acknowledge they are giving such patients a placebo medication, but say it could be beneficial, "it might just actually work."
  13. My sister just died at MD Anderson on Feb 2nd. She had been sick for a full year before doctors figured out she had lymphoma, they told her she had all kinds of crazy childhood ailments like 5ths disease, mono, etc. So, she had a full year wasted with no treatment, by the time she had been diagnosed, she was pretty sick. Two years of treatments with marginal success led to getting a stem-cell transplant just after Thanksgiving. She WAS cancer free when she died, it was the complications of the transplant itself that did her in. She developed a rare complication called TTP, a blood disorder and had to get platelet transfusions and dialysis and all this also somehow caused horrible pnemonia. My family was all with her in her room when she died, I hope I just drop from a heart attack or something like that.

    If you do nothing, 99.9% of you WILL die. There is a success rate for treatment, depending on what you have, key is to catch it early. Most that get caught in latter stages will not live.

    But to say that treatment is the killer is not a complete truth, like I said, it has to be caught early on.
  14. Don't know about the statistics being 1/2 or not but right on post. I wouldn't be surprised if it cut the risk by more than half. And it also cuts the risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes and obesity and lung diseases drastically too.
  15. There is a great -and moving- article today on Bloomberg about the very things that I talked about.
    The account of the suffering and ordeal lived by this family is a terrible thing to read and confirms much of my original post.


    Here are some excerpts :

    "What he didn’t reckon on was that the drug would make him violently ill. But it was the only possible therapy at that time. Injections of the protein -- at $735 a dose -- were intended to stimulate the immune response to help fight off the cancer’s invasion.

    The overall response rate was about 10 percent. For most, it did nothing. "

    "On Nov. 10, before discharging him, a doctor propped one of Terence’s scans on a light board and showed us a blizzard of white spots, thousands of tumors covering his lungs.

    Avastin wasn’t stopping it. "

    "Late last year, I waded through a snowstorm to Keith Flaherty’s office in Boston, where he had moved to a new job that would let him intensify his work on targeted therapy. Did we help Terence? Or harm him? There’s a possibility, he said, that the treatment actually made the cancer worse, causing it to rage out of control at the end. Or, as another doctor suggested in passing at the time, that the strokes were a side effect of the Sutent, and not the cancer. "

    "The documents revealed an economic system in which the sellers don’t set and the buyers don’t know the prices. The University of Pennsylvania hospital charged more than 12 times what Medicare at the time reimbursed for a chest scan. One insurer paid a hospital for 80 percent of the $3,232 price of a scan, while another covered 24 percent. Insurance companies negotiated their own rates, and neither my employers nor I paid the difference between the sticker and discounted prices.

    ‘It’s Completely Insane’

    In this economic system, prices of goods and services bear little relation to the demand for them or their cost to make -- or, as it turns out, the good or harm they do.

    “No other nation would allow a health system to be run the way we do it. It’s completely insane,” said Uwe E. Reinhardt, a political economy professor at Princeton University, who has advised Congress, the Veteran’s Administration and other agencies on health-care economics.

    Taking it all into account, the data showed we had made a bargain that hardly any economist looking solely at the numbers would say made sense. Why did we do it? "

    "I learned that over the years of Terence’s battle with cancer, some insurers drove harder bargains than others. In December 2006, for example, UnitedHealthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group Inc., paid $2,586 to the University of Pennsylvania hospital for a chest scan; in March 2007, after I switched employers, WellPoint Inc.’s Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield paid $776 for the same $3,232 bill.

    The entire medical bill for seven years, in fact, was steeply discounted. The $618,616 became $254,176 when the insurers paid their share and imposed their discounts. Of that, Terence and I were responsible for $9,468 -- less than 4 percent. "
  16. There is more than one type of cancer and some treatments have been developed that are specific to the particular condition. One is Rituximab which is used for some types of lymphomas and leukemias and apparently is quite successful with very few if any side effects. There are other *mab's (monoclonal antibodies) also and more under development.

    I only know about this one because my daughter was treated with Rituximab - thankfully not for a cancer - but for an auto immune condition. It was strikingly successful where all the other treatments (steroids, IVIG, other immune suppressants) were of only temporary benefit.

    There is a lot of dross on the net about medical conditions, and seeking expert opinion is the only sane course. Of course a healthy life style can only be beneficial.
  17. Fat people are always giving me health tips.
  18. But everybody who has the authority to prescribe is an "expert"
    or thinks they are or is told to you that they are. How did you filter out the ones who only think they had what works? I see you went through alot of trial and error ...hoping for a better answer.